Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Oct 2015 22:50:35 +0200 | From | Wolfram Sang <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing |
| |
> > Yes but that is not true for drivers that support both OF and legacy board > > files. For those drivers, there will be a lot of boiler plate code duplicated > > that would look something like: > > > > unsigned long data; > > struct of_device_id *match; > > struct i2c_devicd_id *id; > > > > if (i2c->dev.of_node) { > > match = i2c_of_match_device(of_match_table, i2c); > > if (!match) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > data = (unsigned long)match->data; > > } else { > > id = i2c_match_id(id_table, i2c); > > if (!id) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > data = id->driver_data; > > }
I said this before: It is not only the additional code, I think it is quite unelegant to to do the matching again which has already been done. (and DT boottime has already increased, partly due to the excessive string matching). Also, I wouldn't like to see an I2C specific solution; this problem exists for other subsystems, too.
> I'm fine with a new API for this stuff. I'm even happy to go ahead > and code it up, but it's important to note that this is work which > should be based on this set and not a blocker for this set to be > accepted.
Is that a promise? :)
> The correct approach is the former. One of the aims of this set was > to bring the I2C .probe() call-back more into line with the majority > of the other .probe() calls in the kernel i.e. with only a single > parameter. I'm really not a fan of passing some random void pointer
Yes, I like this about this series.
> in. Using a look-up call to fetch ACPI/OF/I2C/etc data is the current > norm and is a very viable option.
It is the status quo, but that doesn't make it better IMO.
> Wolfram, please (finally :D) take this set.
I tend to give in ;) Maybe we can talk in Dublin a bit about a possible next step after this series?
Thanks,
Wolfram
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
| |